Menu

OPINION: Can Elephants Survive a Continued Ivory Trade Ban?

By Daniel Stiles

PART ONE: Here I respond to Christina Russo’s in-depth examination, published in National Geographic News, of one of the more incendiary questions discussed in wildlife conservation circles: Should there be a legal trade in elephant ivory? I discuss some inaccuracies and misconceptions commonly held by ivory trade ban proponents that were quoted in Russo’s article. Following (PART TWO), I lay out for the first time elements that would be included in a legal trade. The outcome, I believe, will be a significant reduction of elephant killing for ivory.  

I live much of the time in a grass-thatched cottage on a wildlife conservancy in Kenya. I have a view of Mount Kenya out front and the Abedares in back. Just off my large compound is a clearing in the bush that used to be a water reservoir, before the earth dam broke. Now dry, except for a small stream that runs through it, the grass, water, and minerals in the patches of bare soil attract almost daily visits from elephants, white and black rhinos, and all manner of other wildlife.

When I watch the elephant families frolic in the clearing, and see their tusks, I find it hard to imagine that anyone could be so cold-blooded as to kill these magnificent creatures for what are simply long teeth. The elephants use them to good effect as they dig out a wallow in the deeply incised stream.

 

Photograph by Daniel Stiles.
Photograph by Daniel Stiles.
Tusks are useful to elephants—they’re not adornment—used among other things to dig out a wallow in a stream bed. Photograph by Daniel Stiles.
Tusks are useful to elephants—they’re not adornment—used among other things to dig out a wallow in a stream bed. Photograph by Daniel Stiles.

 

I care a lot about elephants. It makes me extremely angry that people kill them for their ivory. But it also frustrates me when I see apparently well-meaning campaigns aimed at policies and actions that will only increase elephant poaching for ivory.

I am convinced that attempts to completely restrict all ivory sales, both domestic and international, and the campaign to destroy all ivory stockpiles—even the historical collection kept by the British royal family—are backfiring tragically on elephants. Already these restrictions have resulted in skyrocketing ivory prices, which along with other factors has spurred an elephant-killing spree. Sadly, as long as these factors remain in place, this will continue.

What Does Empirical Evidence Say?

I believe in empirical evidence to test policies and actions. The policy to test since 1990 is the ban on the international trade in ivory.

Elephant poaching did decrease in some places after the ban, but it carried on as usual in others, and in parts of Southeast Asia it actually increased, with Vietnam, Laos, and Myanmar losing two-thirds of their elephant populations in the decade after the ban.  

In the early years after the ban, ivory market activity and raw ivory prices dropped almost everywhere data are available. It appeared that the ban was initially successful in reducing illegal ivory trading. I thought myself that this was the case until I analyzed what had actually occurred leading up to and following the 1990 ban implementation.

Hong Kong and Japan in the 1980s were the biggest importers and manufacturers of raw ivory. They were probably also the biggest buyers of poached tusks. As calls for more controls on ivory trade escalated in the 1980s, and CITES imposed a quota system on raw ivory exports, elephant poaching increased. With increased poaching, calls began for a total ban on ivory trade from Africa, which could be achieved by listing the African elephant on CITES Appendix I.

No one, to my knowledge, has ever truly determined the drivers of the increased poaching. Not enough research was conducted on ivory markets in the 1980s to be certain, but reports of huge raw ivory stockpiles in Hong Kong in 1989 (665 tons) and Japan (unquantified, but in the 1980s more than 2,500 tons were imported) lead to one conclusion: They were stockpiling. Why? Because a future supply of ivory was uncertain, and increasingly it looked like a ban was on the way.

If high consumer demand had been the cause of the increased poaching, the stockpiles would not have existed. The raw ivory would have been processed.

Tragically, the rising calls for an ivory trade ban increased poaching because East Asian dealers and factories decided to stockpile for future use. The two fed each other in a positive feedback loop—increased poaching, increased calls for control, leading to more poaching to stockpile, ad infinitum until the ban.

After the CITES ban, demand fell in the West owing to all the negative publicity related to buying ivory that accompanied the run-up to the ban. East Asia’s largest ivory export market withered. East Asia was left with huge ivory stockpiles and falling demand. Prices fell, ivory market activity slumped. The ban seemed to be working.

Lack of Foresight

The period 1990-92 was critical for planning for future predictable occurrences. One: As the stockpiles dwindled, East Asian ivory factories would eventually begin looking for new raw ivory. Two: By 1990, the economic reforms made by China’s “paramount leader” Deng Xiaoping were well apparent. China would become an important part of the ivory demand equation. Three: With the trade ban in place, the ivory could only be obtained from poaching.

 

By 1990 it was apparent that China would become an important part of the ivory demand equation because of economic growth and liberalization. The vertical red line indicates the start of the ivory trade ban. (Graph courtesy of Wikipedia).
By 1990 it was apparent that China would become an important part of the ivory demand equation because of economic growth and liberalization. The vertical red line indicates the start of the ivory trade ban. (Graph courtesy of Wikipedia).

 

If conservationists had been proactive, they would have planned for these three predictable occurrences, but they did not. Esmond Martin and I carried out a series of ivory investigations in Africa and Asia between 1999 and 2003. We noted, “… in parts of Central and West Africa there appears to have been a slow revival since the mid-1990s.” In South East Asia we found, in part, “Unfortunately, it appears that demand for ivory has remained steady or increased in some places in Asia since the mid-1990s, stimulating elephant poaching.” 

However, after the CITES-authorized 1999 sales from southern Africa to Japan, the ivory market decline continued in China, Taiwan, and Japan. All the indicators—ivory prices, numbers of factories, craftsmen, outlets, etc.—had dropped from pre-1989 levels.

“These statistics illustrate very well indeed that the ivory industry of Japan since the late 1980s has experienced a massive decline,” and “probably the most surprising finding of this survey was the unexpectedly small size of the local market in China,” said Martin and Stiles in 2003: The Ivory Markets of East Asia report.

In spite of hard evidence to the contrary, the Environmental Investigation Agency (EIA) continues to claim that the 1999 sale stimulated demand and “substantially compromised its [the ban’s] integrity, effectiveness, and enforceability,” according to Allan Thornton in Russo’s essay.

Esmond Martin and I could find no signs of this.  We wrote: “Ivory industry business personnel in China, Hong Kong and Taiwan did not believe that the 1999 southern African ivory auctions had a significant effect on either internal or external ivory demand.”

 

In 2002 half-empty shelves showed that the ivory industry was moribund in China, but there was still ivory being manufactured 12 years after the ban from newly poached tusks. The 1999 CITES-approved sale to Japan had changed nothing. Photograph by Daniel Stiles
In 2002 half-empty shelves showed that the ivory industry was moribund in China, but there was still ivory being manufactured 12 years after the ban from newly poached tusks. The 1999 CITES-approved sale to Japan had changed nothing. Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

If CITES Parties and conservationists had seized the opportunity to establish a well-designed legal raw ivory trade regime in the early 1990s when demand was low, the poaching rise we have witnessed over the past 20 years could have been avoided.

The Real Cause of Rising Demand in China

The credo of the ivory ban proponents has been that the 2008 CITES-approved ivory sale to Japan and China was the cause of the spike in consumer demand, which set off the current elephant poaching crisis. The insinuation was that a regular legal ivory trade would be even more disastrous.

Esmond Martin and Lucy Vigne assessed Japan’s ivory market in late 2009 and concluded that “The golden days of ivory carving in Japan have ended.” The market had continued its precipitous downward spiral seen in 2002. There were fewer carvers, outlets, and items seen for sale.

These findings did not prevent EIA’s Allan Thornton proclaiming falsely in Russo’s article that “Japan is back in the ivory business,” implying it had been reinvigorated because of the 2008 sales.

However, consumer demand for ivory did rise in China, beginning in about 2004 and surging in 2006. It took a Chinese student researcher from Yale University to discover what prompted the rise in ivory interest in China. Yufang Gao spent two days visiting with me in Kenya and explaining his ideas, which I found original and stimulating.

Gao was not satisfied with the common explanation that the rise in ivory demand was driven by the CITES approved one-off sale in 2008. He learned that in 2002 the Chinese government started to put traditional culture preservation on the agenda, and in 2005 the government launched a number of initiatives in association with UNESCO’s Convention for the Safeguarding of Intangible Cultural Heritage.

In 2006 ivory carving was designated as a national intangible cultural heritage. This State recognition enhanced the cultural value of ivory carving, raising its value in the eyes of consumers.

From 2002 to 2006 the Chinese government promoted ivory carving as an intangible cultural heritage, which raised its value and desirability in the eyes of the public.  Photograph by Daniel Stiles
From 2002 to 2006 the Chinese government promoted ivory carving as an intangible cultural heritage, which raised its value and desirability in the eyes of the public.
Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

The second and the most important driver of worked ivory demand was a boom in arts investment, especially after the global economic crisis that began in 2007. As real estate and stock markets tumbled, a large amount of capital from individuals and professional investment companies started to enter the art market. Along with ancient Chinese paintings, jades, and porcelains, carved ivory was touted as a profitable investment. Media coverage about the astronomical prices of auctioned ivory greatly boosted the perceived economic value of ivory products, new or old, which led to an explosion of ivory demand.

Ivory art for investment took off in 2009 and peaked at the end of 2011, mirroring elephant poaching data produced by the Monitoring the Illegal Killing of Elephants (MIKE) program.

 

Between 2009 and 2011 wealthy Chinese consumers flocked to buy ivory artworks as an investment, stimulating demand. Photograph by Daniel Stiles
Between 2009 and 2011 wealthy Chinese consumers flocked to buy ivory artworks as an investment, stimulating demand. Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

It was these cultural and investment factors, and not the 2008 one-off ivory sale, which stimulated consumer interest in worked ivory in China.

“The 2008 CITES one-off sale stimulating demand in China is a myth created by Westerners,” Gao told me.

Consumer Demand Falls—Elephant Poaching Rates Go Up?

Recent information suggests that consumer demand has been falling since 2012, supported by research carried out in China by Kirsten Conrad and Brendan Moyle in 2013 and 2014. “The factories are actually using up tusks slower than the total allocations (13.78 tons out of 18). If demand had taken off in the way many are claiming, then we’d expect to see these numbers trending up to match,” said Brendan Moyle. Some factories were even selling raw ivory because they didn’t need it.

If the investment craze for carved ivory was tapering off, why was elephant poaching still going full speed ahead?

 

Ivory factories in China did not even use all of the tusks they were allocated by the government. Moyle found that the 2012-13 weight of raw ivory processed fell by more than 50 percent from 2011-12 (the production cycle is July-July), indicating a drop in consumer demand. Photograph by Daniel Stiles
Ivory factories in China did not even use all of the tusks they were allocated by the government. Moyle found that the 2012-13 weight of raw ivory processed fell by more than 50 percent from 2011-12 (the production cycle is July-July), indicating a drop in consumer demand. Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

It was not only Chinese consumer interest in carved ivory that sparked the poaching crisis beginning in 2008-09. Investors, a.k.a. speculators, also became interested in raw ivory—tusks. After anti-trade NGOs succeeded in forcing a nine-year moratorium on proposals for future legal ivory sales from southern Africa at the CITES Conference of the Parties in 2007, unscrupulous ivory dealers saw that there was even more money to be made from poached tusks, because uncertainty of supply fuels speculation.

CITES, thanks to anti-trade NGOs, had provided traffickers with a windfall. Just as China ivory factories thought that they would be receiving a continued supply of legal tusks through repeated CITES-approved sales, their hopes were dashed

We are now back to a situation somewhat like the 1980s, where East Asian dealers and factories are buying all of the poached ivory they can. The positive feedback loop, with calls for more restrictions leading to more stockpiling and more poaching are once again feeding one another. But instead of Hong Kong and Japan, now it’s China that is buying most of the poached ivory. And instead of stockpiling ivory for future use, some of the biggest buyers are hoarding tusks for future sale, when they expect to make a killing as increasing tusk scarcity continues to force prices ever higher.

The “Stop Ivory” campaign, which aims to close all ivory markets and destroy all stockpiles, is creating a perception of ivory scarcity. The well-publicized new round of ivory stockpile destructions beginning in Kenya in 2011 and running up to the present in the Philippines, the USA, China, Hong Kong, and other places has turned perception into reality. Close to 70 tons of ivory has been destroyed, equaling the legal annual quota in China over 12 years.

The Price of Illegal Raw Ivory in China Has Skyrocketed

Martin and Vigne went to China in late 2010, and again in May 2014, and found that “The average price paid by craftsmen or factory owners, for good quality, privately-owned 1-4 kg elephant tusks in Beijing in early 2014 was $2,100 per kilogram [$955 per pound]. The average price for similar tusks in 2010 was $750 per kg [$341 per pound].”

Speculators are attracted to a 280 percent return on investment in less than four years. If the ivory is purchased in Africa, profits are much higher. Chinese ivory traffickers are flocking to the Zambian countryside, Dar es-Salaam, Kinshasa, and dozens of other places in Africa where tusks can be bought from poachers and middlemen for as little as $50 per kilogram. What speculator can resist buying a commodity at $50 a kilogram and selling it for $2,100 a kilogram? That’s a 4,200 percent profit! In reality, of course, with all of the expenses and an average buying price of about $150 a kilogram, profit might be “only” 1,000 percent.

The opportunity for enormous profits has prompted high-level African politicians, military officers, and police commanders to muscle into the trafficking networks. Corruption of the kind described by Liz Bennett in her recent essay in Conservation Biology is now common. The corruption is a result of the CITES ivory trade ban and is strengthened by the campaign to “Stop Ivory.”

We need to appreciate that the high poaching rates and corrupt ivory trafficking networks described by Bennett were created under an ivory ban regime. The two one-off sales were blips that had little effect, as both the Elephant Trade Information (ETIS)  and MIKE concluded after extensive analysis. I concluded the same when analyzing the 1999 one-off sale.

Even with the downturn in consumer demand for carved ivory in China, the increased speculator demand for raw ivory is driving horrifying rates of elephant poaching.

Tom Milliken, who manages ETIS, was recently quoted as saying, “Just looking at large-scale ivory seizures, 2013 represents the highest quantity of ivory seized in 25 years of data going back to 1989.” More than 51 metric tons (57 U.S. tons) of ivory were seized in 2013! This is empirical evidence that the CITES ivory ban and stockpile destruction are bad policy.

 

The high price of ivory is driving elephant massacres all across Africa. Speculators encourage this because greater scarcity of elephants and ivory means higher prices in future.

 

What Is the Solution?

Empirical evidence does not suggest that more of the same would be successful in reducing poaching. I agree with Albert Einstein, “Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”

If China could receive 40-50 tons and Japan 10-15 tons of legal raw ivory annually, the speculators would be put out of business, most ivory factory owners would cease buying poached tusks, raw ivory prices would plummet, and elephant poaching would become much less profitable, greatly reducing the incentive to poach. Uncertainty and speculation would cease.

This quantity of ivory could be supplied from a combination of existing African stockpiles, natural elephant mortality and “problem” animal control. Many people are unaware that large numbers of elephants are killed legally every year in human-elephant conflict situations. Not a single elephant life would have to be sacrificed for this legal, regulated trade.

Elephant killing would not cease entirely, because there are other drivers such as human-elephant conflict, meat, and African ivory markets. But even a 50 percent reduction in poaching rates would be worth it.

Is the goal to stop elephant killing, or stop ivory? I’m for the first one.

PART TWO: How would a legal trade system work?

With a legal raw ivory trade, elephants can thrive.

There are measures that can be taken to avoid corruption and laundering of the type described in Elizabeth Bennett’s Conservation Biology essay. She described the problems associated with the current illegal system and applied them to an assumed legal ivory trade. Her assumptions were faulty.

The legal system would need to achieve three essential outcomes: (1) ivory factory owners no longer buy poached tusks, (2) ivory consumer demand is driven down to meet available legal supply, and (3) the current black market ivory factories and outlets in China are either brought into the legal system or put out of business.

I mention only China in outcome 3 because China is the elephant in the room, so to speak. With 1.4 billion people and an economy that will soon be the largest in the world, coupled with a cultural desire for ivory, the Chinese control the fate of elephants.

If these three outcomes can be achieved, all of the concerns about corruption and leakage of illegal ivory into the legal supply chain outlined in Bennett’s essay can be avoided. I will explain why.

(1) Ivory factory owners, whether they be a State Owned Enterprise (SOE) in China or privately owned, have the same basic objectives—make a profit and stay in business. If a legal business achieves those two objectives better than an illegal one, the rational owner or manager will choose the legal option. So if legal raw ivory can be provided in sufficient quantity at predictable times at an acceptable price, there will be no incentive to buy higher risk illegal ivory.

In addition, there are advantages that legal raw ivory in China offers: It is much cheaper than illegal, and legal supply is predictable, while illegal supply because of seizures is not. The only reason an illegal market operates at all is the lack of sufficient legal supply, which is controlled by the government at 5-6 tons a year.

If 40-50 tons of legal raw ivory could be supplied a year, all of the currently illegal factories could be drawn into the legal system by the offer of low-risk, high-gain legal ivory. They would not need to buy illegal ivory, eliminating the motivation to launder (i.e. buy illegal and mix with the legal).

The reduction in demand for illegal ivory would drive its price down to a level that would become unattractive for most traffickers, which would lower poaching and quash speculative buying and stockpiling. Who would stockpile a commodity whose price is falling?

Currently, the Chinese government is selling legal raw ivory at about $600 a kilogram on average to registered ivory factories, according to Moyle and Conrad. Illegal factories are paying an average of $2,100 a kilogram according to Martin and Vigne, and Gao found that secondary raw ivory dealing on the Internet reached prices up to $2,800 a kilogram.

What factory owner in his or her right mind would buy poached tusks at those prices if legal ones were available at $600 a kilogram?

(2) Consumer demand can be driven down in two ways, one of them already succeeding in China and Japan—price. The main reason consumer demand started falling in 2012 in China is that carved ivory prices reached a limit few consumers were willing to pay. I believe this was intentional in the legal market and coincidentally necessary in the illegal market.

Because of the very small quotas of raw ivory rationed to legal factories, they opted to produce low quantity, high quality, high price items—mainly elaborate figurines, carved or polished tusks, and extravagant composite pieces. Only the wealthy could afford to buy them. The huge profit per item compensated for the low volume.

 

Because of low legal raw ivory supply, legal ivory factories in China pursue a strategy of producing mostly low volume, highly priced items. Photograph by Daniel Stiles
Because of low legal raw ivory supply, legal ivory factories in China pursue a strategy of producing mostly low volume, highly priced items. Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

The illegal market sector is forced to charge higher prices than in 2010 because the raw ivory they use has gone up in cost so much recently, currently to more than $2,000 a kilogram. Because they have to sell in high volume, they manufacture mostly the smaller, less expensive items such as diminutive, lower quality figurines, jewelry, name seal blanks, chopsticks, and other knick-knacks. They are not able to produce the high quality items the legal sector does because, with a few exceptions perhaps, the master craftsmen work in the legal sector.

It is Versace versus Wal-Mart applied to ivory.

To drive overall ivory consumption down, the entire ivory market must be shifted more toward the Versace model.

This is where the second way to drive consumer demand down comes in—campaigns of the type WildAid, Save the Elephants, African Wildlife Foundation, and others have launched. Create awareness about the harm buying ivory causes to elephants. Target especially jewelry and other items that are seen in public, create stigma associated with wearing or using ivory items, as was done with fur. Combined with high prices, stigma could lower demand considerably for ivory bracelets, necklaces, cigarette holders, and so on produced in the black market.

3) In a sustained, legal ivory trade system the Chinese government is crucial to achieve the outcome of doing away with the black market. The traditional carrot- and-stick approach can be used to entice the illegal factories to register and join the legal, regulated system. They can be offered a quota of legal ivory annually at relatively low cost. The owner and employees of any unregistered factories found operating after a certain date would suffer severe penalties. Why would a factory owner choose to take the risk of staying in the black market when low-cost, legal ivory was on offer?

Supply and Demand

For the system above to work, it depends on there being enough legal raw ivory available to bring a high proportion of illegal ivory factories on board the legal boat, and being able to satisfy consumer demand reasonably well. A small amount of residual illegal activity is to be expected, but the overall objective of significantly reducing elephant poaching can be achieved.

A document submitted at the 65th CITES Standing Committee meeting in July this year stated that the “current African ivory stockpiles contain at least 800 [metric tons] of ivory… The true figure, however, may be considerably higher than that.” There are many complications involving what quantity would be legal to trade and which countries would meet CITES criteria to enable them to trade, but it is apparent that there’s a lot of ivory sitting in storerooms in Africa that is being wasted. It could be used to save elephant lives.

Kathleen Gobush produced the results of a lengthy study carried out for Save the Elephants last year that included estimates of how much ivory accumulates annually from natural mortality. Her methodology would yield 38 tons annually at a 4 percent natural mortality rate from only 12 African countries, where data were good enough to run her model. If problem animal control (PAC) ivory were added, the quantity would be much larger. She found that 44-67 percent of the legal ivory sold by the four southern African countries in 2008 derived from PAC ivory, and the remainder from natural deaths.

While no exact figure can be put at present on how much ivory would be available from stockpiles, natural mortality and PAC combined, I am confident that a minimum of 60 tons of legal ivory could be exported from Africa annually for at least ten years, without a single poached tusk needed. During this ten-year period, intense demand-reduction campaigns can be mounted so that renewable resource ivory from natural deaths and PAC can supply demand sustainably.

The cheaper legal raw ivory should not translate to cheaper worked ivory, however. This could stimulate consumer demand. I would recommend that a “conservation tax” be applied to worked ivory to keep prices up, dampening demand. The revenues could be dedicated to conservation projects in Africa and awareness campaigns in China.

 

To prevent cheaper raw ivory translating to cheaper worked ivory, which would raise consumer demand, a conservation tax could be applied to keep prices high. Photograph by Daniel Stiles
To prevent cheaper raw ivory translating to cheaper worked ivory, which would raise consumer demand, a conservation tax could be applied to keep prices high. Photograph by Daniel Stiles

 

Preventing Leakage and Laundering

Legal ivory stockpile quantities would be reported annually to CITES, as currently required. A country not reporting would not be eligible to sell its ivory. Every eligible country would be subject to periodic independent monitoring of its stockpile in a manner to be determined by CITES.

CITES would supervise sales annually or semiannually following procedures established for the one-off sales. The significant difference being that now buyers would be confident that they’d know when, where, and how much ivory will be available in future. Uncertainty and speculation will be eliminated.

The ivory will be shipped in sealed containers directly from African government storerooms to Asian government receiving points in the purchasing countries for storage and distribution. This will cut out all of the points subject to corruption and laundering mentioned in the Bennett essay.

If this type of system can be established, I foresee that many African countries that currently export their ivory illegally, often with government involvement, will see the advantages of cleaning up their act so that they can qualify to enter the legal trade regime. Why take the risk of smuggling illegal ivory that is subject to confiscation when it can be sold legally, risk-free? The advantages will become increasingly apparent as poached ivory prices plummet with legal trade.

“No Good Reason Why Anyone Needs Ivory”

I agree completely with Beth Allgood’s sentiments expressed in Russo’s feature: There’s no good reason why anyone needs ivory. But not everyone feels the way Beth and I do, and we have to face reality. Some people want ivory. I do not see the attempt to ban all ivory succeeding better than allowing the limited, legal raw ivory trade described here. Closing the legal ivory market in China will only drive the master carvers and others into the illegal sector. The black market is already illegal, how much more illegal can it become with a total ban? It will carry on and even expand, fostering crime, corruption, and continued elephant killing.

Elephants cannot survive the continued ivory trade ban and “Stop Ivory.” They can thrive with legal trade.

Daniel Stiles is a member of the IUCN/SSC African Elephant Specialist Group.

Comments

  1. ablaye
    angola
    January 25, 2015, 6:52 pm

    je vou les savoir par an cobien de elephants mors

  2. Herbert Gartner
    san diego
    November 12, 2014, 11:25 pm

    Is there a way to create Ivory without using animals for it? If there was an invention to do so it would save the elephants and rhinos from extinction. We should focus some of our efforts to genetically engineer bacteria that create ivory or some other means to create ivory without animals.

  3. Hilde Vanleeuwe
    Republic of Congo
    October 9, 2014, 7:42 am

    If one could really achieve even just assumption 1 that would be essential for Stiles’ system to work … law is respected, enforced, and any deviation will be punished ….for countries in Central Africa, wouldn’t so many problems be solved by now. Managing a park in Congo, fighting corruption on a daily basis, I (my views do not necessarily represent those of the IUCN AfESG) just see an influential smart person with a eutopic idea, going too long a way to defend a weak conviction that will evidently find support with the elephant trophy hunters and the ivory traders …. a bit like those that don’t believe in climate change…

  4. Jane
    October 7, 2014, 1:34 pm

    I was referring to your article, “Aunt Mildred’s teeth,
    CITES and the Ivory trade,” (which I quoted in my response) where you imply that the NGOs pushing for a ban, and intentionally lying to people, are doing so because that’s what gets the most cash from gullible donors. I brought up Daphne because considering her antitrade campaign iWorry’s stance, you’re implying that she’s in it for the cash. Which is obviously ludicrous and tells me all I need to know about your true position.

    Gee, you know, I do want to understand the argument, so I’ll go read the expert opinions rebutting this ‘irrelevant, illogical and illegal’ article before I really *do* become dangerously misinformed.

  5. Daniel Stiles
    Kenya
    September 30, 2014, 10:23 am

    I’m pleased to see that my commentary has created a forum for discussing the pros and cons of a limited regulation of international raw ivory trade. This has been missing. I am grateful to National Geographic for playing the objective arbiter, much to their credit. I will reply to the comments that need response in chronological order.

    @Jane – To be honest, I don’t know what you’re talking about. Dame Daphne Sheldrick’s work has nothing to do with the ivory trade ban – though there would be fewer orphans if the ban were lifted in the way I propose. The primary purpose of a legal raw ivory supply to certain countries is not to make money, it is to reduce poaching, please try to understand the argument.

    @Stania – I agree completely. Already there are encouraging signs in Hong Kong and China of demand weakening as consumers become more aware of how ivory is sourced. If legal ivory could replace poached, campaigns would need to adapt the approach to make ivory seem unfashionable to keep demand down.

    @Diane – The only possible solution (I assume you are referring to elephant killing for ivory) is to lower demand to be as close as possible to legal ivory from stockpiles, natural mortality and problem animal control.

    @Sarel – I said nothing about “flooding the market” and I wish people would stop using that misleading term. There is no “open market” for raw ivory, nor should there be. You raise an excellent point about human and elephant demographics, which I haven’t discussed, which are important parts of the issue that will increasingly become more important.

    @Cindy – If the terrorist organizations have no one to sell their ivory to, or at least they can only get much lower prices than at present, it will be an improvement. BTW, Boko Haram and Al Shabaab have never funded themselves from ivory.

    @Peter – You need to grasp how incentives, disincentives and perceptions of risk affect decision-making on the part of the people who really matter in the poaching crisis – those putting up the money. If the people who buy poached tusks see more advantages in buying legal ivory from governments, that’s what they will do. The price of poached ivory will plummet. This will leave poachers and the local-level traffickers with greatly reduced potential income while risk of being caught or killed, or product seized, remains the same (hopefully even increased). Many or most will eventually drop out. On the China demand side, it’s also a process. Drive demand down while bringing more of the black market players into the legal system.

    @Rob (also @Kirsten) – You raise an extremely important issue I also have not addressed because of space – equity for Africans. Western NGOs are imposing their values and beliefs on Africans at no expense to the Westerners. It is Africans who are paying, through loss of valuable natural resources. I have seen how these powerful NGOs threaten African countries with tourist boycotts or offer incentives to key government officials if they follow NGO policy directives. They also berate governments with negative publicity campaigns if they submit a CITES proposal for a legal ivory sale, and praise them when they announce an ivory or hunting ban or ivory stockpile destruction. It is depressing to witness how African governments are losing their hard-fought sovereignty to these hugely powerful NGOs that have very sophisticated multi-media operations.

    @Larry – There is definitely an ideological basis for much of the “Stop Ivory” movement that currently grips the U.S. and elsewhere. There is extremely little conservation science or objective, even-handed thought involved.

    @wonder mike – I wonder, Mike, did you read my piece?

    @DFK – I answered why a factory would not buy poached ivory on the backside. One, it would be more expensive and, two, there is risk of being caught. If legal ivory is available, why would a factory go underground?

    @Zach – Your assumption is incorrect, the anti-ivory campaign has been hugely successful in the West and Japan (which have legal ivory markets) and is beginning to make inroads into consumers’ perceptions in China-Hong Kong. Mink coats are still legal, but how many are sold these days? It is naïve to think ivory demand can ever be eliminated, equally that all illegal ivory and poaching can be eliminated. The question is, which will save most elephant lives – a ban in a sea of corruption, or legal supply that puts the corrupt people out of business?

    @Donald – I wasn’t actually addressing the recent U.S. proposed changes in law, but the USFWS proposals do not seem to have been well thought out, nor did USFWS consult with stakeholders (other than the pro-ban NGOs) beforehand. Illegal ivory is entering the United States, and I would support any effective measures to prevent it that do not trample human rights or constitutional protections.

    @Hedges – As you should know, the legal trade with quotas tried briefly in the 1980s did not involve any vetting of sellers or buyers – it was open market – and shipping was unmonitored. I am certainly not advocating a return to that. Demand reduction for legal fur coats, tobacco, etc. have worked quite well, bedfellows or not. Laundering would occur if there were an advantage in doing it. What is the advantage in the system I described? Tanzania and Botswana are good examples of countries that gave in to threats of future P.R. campaigns that would be launched against them if they did not follow “recommendations”. Tanzania and Zambia already suffered a barrage of negative publicity after they submitted proposals at CITES CoP15 to sell ivory. That led to the Zambian government, or rather a section of it, announcing a hunting ban that is still mired in confusion. If Tanzania, Zambia and Botswana were not being coerced by powerful Western NGOs, they would enter into a rational, regulated legal raw ivory sales regime in an instant.

    @Maisels – Your Assumption 1 is even more important for the ban to work. Under a ban regime all the incentives are for breaking the law. In a legal regime the incentives are for obeying it. I used to agree with your Assumption 2, which explains why it took me so long to realize that legal trade really was feasible. There is no set “demand” that production has to meet. Demand can be manipulated by price and other factors to meet supply. That’s why the world doesn’t run out of Ferraris to meet the demand of the millions who want them. You will have to explain why Assumption 3 is incorrect. Bennett certainly didn’t. I happen to think that it is not only possible, it is the only hope for elephants. If Assumption 4 being incorrect is based on that one Nadal and Aguayo report, then I’m afraid you will be disillusioned. Nadal is a macroeconomist dealing in theoretical equilibrium theory as applied to everything from trade in corn through sustainable development to nuclear disarmament. He’s never published on wildlife trade before this report. Aguayo did his Ph.D. on electric power systems and his list of interests does not include wildlife trade and, as with Nadal, this is his first (and hopefully last) publication on wildlife trade. Several resource economists who have studied wildlife trade and published on it extensively think their report contains serious errors and I understand that a response is in preparation.

    @Bennett – I in fact said, “The policy to test since 1990 is the ban on the international trade in ivory.” Why do you put words in my mouth saying I asserted it was a total ban, not including national ivory markets? Is it to set up a straw man you can blow down? I was correct in stating that the high poaching rates and corrupt ivory trafficking networks were created under an international ivory ban regime. I think everyone agrees with your description of why the slaughter is occurring, it is the response to it that is the issue. Your statement is even more to the point if rephrased: It is naïve to think that the deeply-entrenched and institutionalized corruption systems will fade into insignificance if there were a continuation of an international trade ban. Indeed, continuing to promote an international trade ban is likely to encourage poaching and stockpiling, in the hope of future market opportunities.” The last part is already happening, it’s not even future tense. How will continuing the same policy change anything? If all ivory trade could stop for ten years, I would support it. But I am not naïve enough to think that with all of the corruption it could ever be achieved. Only incentives offered to the people who currently buy poached tusks to stop buying them can work.

    @Lieberman – You are criticizing the statement “no one has ever truly determined the drivers of the increased poaching” I clearly made about the 1980s as if it were today, why? You say it is legal domestic markets that drive the poaching and illegal trade. They are not the drivers, it is the lack of legal ivory supply that drives the killing and trafficking. If those domestic legal markets are closed, the black markets that replace them will still exist and need supply. As during Prohibition in the U.S., criminals will be the main beneficiaries. As to what you call “experiments” in trade, conditions change over time and new situations demand new responses. The ban worked temporarily in the early 1990s, as I said, but the lack of foresight and planning by the conservation community to the SE Asian “tiger” economies that had already taken off and the already predicted rise of China was a missed opportunity to design a sustainable system while demand was still low. The failure of the 1980s unregulated, unmonitored system was already known. I am not confused about the nature of the ivory being destroyed, you obviously didn’t grasp my point – the destructions create perceptions of scarcity, whether the perception is accurate or not. It is a psychological factor that can influence speculators to buy. You say, “Nor does he acknowledge that high poaching and ivory trafficking rates existed before the “ivory ban regime”, and indeed were the main reason the Appendix I listing (prohibiting international commercial trade) was adopted by the CITES Parties in 1989.” I can only suppose you are a novice in ivory trade and have not read my many publications pointing out that very fact. What I am arguing now, in the light of experience studying ivory trafficking and market operations in Africa and Asia for 15 years, and of researching poaching on the ground in East and Central Africa for over 30 years, is that given current conditions the most workable and sustainable response is the one I described. “Stiles assumes that demand will never change”. Where did that come from? There is no such thing as a set “demand” and, as I said in my commentary, a main objective is to continue driving demand down.

    @Gordon – I can assure you, Leonardo’s sailors were totally at sea.

  6. Brendan Moyle
    New Zealand
    September 26, 2014, 1:06 am

    In actuality I find Daniel’s analysis to be less simplistic in the economic sense than the critiques. Daniel separates the market for stockpiled raw ivory from retail carvings. He supplies evidence for stockpiling. He provides sound reasons for what drives it. Without the speculative motive, there is no good reason why any business would be stockpiling raw materials to last for years.

    We do have examples of regulated wildlife trade reducing poaching. These have worked in corrupt countries with high-valued products. Papua New Guinea has a history of exporting crocodile skins from the 1970s. It is corrupt and afflicted with poor governance. Estuarine crocodile skins are a high valued product. Wild crocodile numbers in Papua New Guinea have increased. Corruption may make implementing good policies challenging, but it does not make it impossible.

    The spectre of laundering is regularly raised with wildlife trade. It is not a ubiquitous feature however. Despite many predictions it would afflict many of the traded classic crocodilians, it hasn’t. Exaggerating the laundering risks is not helpful. If competition from legal sources can crowd out poachers from the market, this potential gain will be lost by such exaggerations.

    Poaching and smuggling of illegal ivory has been growing for years. Within the important Chinese market the bad guys had established both illegal carving factories and a network of sellers. This emerged before the 2008 CITES agreement. Such criminal organisations have side-stepped the laundering issue by creating their own selling networks. Banning legal trade within China would be an exercise in futility. The bad guys have moved on from the 1980s. They don’t rely on laundering. I think it’s time to stop revisiting the battles of the 1980s.

    Nobody is advocating a return to the trade regimes of the 1980s. Just as nobody with advocating trade in crocodile hides advocated the trade regimes that brought about their collapse. And if *regulated* is a policy option to reduce poaching, then it seems perverse to wait until elephants have recovered to attempt it. At this stage, we need to be evaluating the evidence as to the optimal course of action. There is enough evidence to consider regulated trade as one of our weapons against poaching.

    Brendan Moyle
    Wildlife Economist

  7. Fiona Gordon
    New Zealand
    September 25, 2014, 6:42 pm

    Even with any “emotional hyperbole” removed, the economic models and theories by environmental economists are clearly debunked in this recent review of the economic analysis of wildlife trade – LCSV Working Paper No. 6: Leonardo’s sailors: A review of the economic analysis of wildlife trade http://thestudyofvalue.org/publications/

    “This paper focuses on the analytical framework used in these analyses and on its deficiencies, both at the conceptual or theoretical level, as well as from an empirical point of view”….”Our study shows that the literature advocating trade as a conservation solution for endangered species relies on models that are based on simplistic and/or extremely restrictive assumptions. In most cases, these models also rely on conceptual tools that have been theoretically discredited. Failure to take into account the theoretical and empirical issues covered in this review undermines recommendations to adopt market-based policies in response to conservation problems.”

  8. Susan Lieberman
    Washngton, D.C.
    September 25, 2014, 4:52 pm

    Stiles is not correct say that “no one has ever truly determined the drivers of the increased poaching”. There is a lot of work on the relationship between disposable wealth in China and rates of illegal killing. Although much of that is more correlation than causation, I believe that it is clear that increased demand in Asia coupled with a lack of governance and rampant corruption are the main drivers of the illegal trade, which is what drives the illegal killing to supply the trade.

    I agree that the two “one off” sales are not the prime drivers of the rampant poaching and illegal ivory trade we are seeing today. Rather, it is the prevalence of legal domestic markets that drives the market to continue–whether those domestic markets exist in Africa, Asia, Europe, or North America.

    We have done the experiment of having a legal international ivory trade, and we have done the experiment of allowing domestic ivory markets to continue in spite of an international trade ban. Elephants do not have time for more experiments–we need to close the loopholes and let elephants recover. In 25 years, if elephants have recovered and are no longer threatened in Asia and across Africa by poaching and trade, then we can talk about a potential legal trade. But not now.

    Stiles assumes that the economics and politics of China and Southeast Asia today are unchanged from the 1980s and 1990s, and could and should have been predicted by conservationists. That is a false assumption. There is vastly more disposable income today, coupled with improved transport; ivory must stop being available on those markets if elephants are to recover.

    There is no evidence to support Stiles’ assertion that “If CITES Parties and conservationists had seized the opportunity to establish a well-designed legal raw ivory trade regime in the early 1990s when demand was low, the poaching rise we have witnessed over the past 20 years could have been avoided.” There was a legal raw ivory trade regime in the 1980s, and it failed miserably. People with good intentions designed that system, and it failed–and that was with vastly more limited transport systems in Africa, and a weaker Chinese economy.

    Stiles is confused about the ivory stockpile destructions–which all involve seized/confiscated ivory. It is prohibited under CITES to ever allow that ivory into international trade, and one of the options recommended by CITES is destruction.

    Stiles is incorrect when he says, “We need to appreciate that the high poaching rates and corrupt ivory trafficking networks described by Bennett were created under an ivory ban regime”. The high poaching rates and corrupt trafficking networks have proliferated under an ivory regime wherein domestic markets are allowed in Africa, Asia, and elsewhere—–there is no true global ban on ivory markets. Stiles clearly doesn’t understand the roots of corruption, or its devastating impacts. Nor does he acknowledge that high poaching and ivory trafficking rates existed before the “ivory ban regime”, and indeed were the main reason the Appendix I listing (prohibiting international commercial trade) was adopted by the CITES Parties in 1989.

    Stiles assumes that demand will never change–but although there are still problems in the US, EU, and Japan, we have seen significant declines in demand for ivory in all 3 since the 1990 CITES Appendix I listing entered into force. We should trust that with proper evidence-based demand reduction programs, consumption and demand can also be reduced in China.

    Susan Lieberman, PhD
    Vice-President, International Policy, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

  9. Elizabeth L. Bennett
    New York
    September 25, 2014, 8:10 am

    One major flaw running throughout Stiles’ essay is his assertion that the 1989 ban was a total ban. It was not. It was a ban on international commercial trade, but many countries across North America, Europe, Africa and Asia continue to have thriving legal domestic markets. Those markets facilitate the illegal trade, and the poaching to supply it, by providing an easy front for laundering trafficked ivory. Hence, Stiles is incorrect in saying that the high poaching rates and corrupt ivory trafficking networks were created under an ivory ban regime. They were not. They were created under a mixed regime with multiple legal domestic markets into which illegal ivory can readily be moved.

    The current slaughter is due to the combination of burgeoning demand from East Asia correlated with increasing wealth, vastly increased infrastructure links between rural Africa and East Asia, the emerging involvement of organized crime networks in the trade, and all-pervasive corruption that facilitates laundering of illegal ivory into legal markets. It is naïve to think that the deeply-entrenched and institutionalized corruption systems will fade into insignificance if there were a return to a legal international trade. Indeed, continuing to promote a legal international trade is likely to encourage poaching and stockpiling, in the hope of future market opportunities. It is only if the whole conservation community, government and non-government, jointly works to ensure that all ivory trade stops for at least ten years and thereafter until elephant populations are no longer threatened by illegal killing that we will be able to get this slaughter under control.

  10. Fiona Maisels
    UK
    September 25, 2014, 7:13 am

    In reply to the above article, I will very briefly refer to the comments that I made in 2012 in response to a request from the AfESG (for CITES) on the Martin et al (2012) report “Decision-making mechanisms and necessary conditions for a future trade in African elephant ivory”. My comments- and those of several others, including Stiles, go into quite a lot of detail for which there is no need to repeat, but can be consulted here:
    http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/afesg_comments_draftreport_11may2012.pdf
    http://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/afesg_comments_finalreport_30august2012.pdf
    https://cmsdata.iucn.org/downloads/afesg_comments_secretariatdocument_october2012.pdf
    http://www.cites.org/common/cop/16/inf/E-CoP16i-05.pdf

    My main points were that four important assumptions are made for any ivory trade to be workable and that these assumptions are, at present not correct. The assumptions include the range states and the destination countries and are: Assumption 1: the law is respected, enforced, and any deviation will be punished; Assumption 2: Demand is lower than the potential production rate; Assumption 3: a legal ivory trade will replace the illegal ivory trade and Assumption4: the economics have been worked out.

    The Bennett 2014 paper counters Assumptions 1, 2, and 3. And, the same year, the report by the respected economists Nadal and Aguayo “Leonardo’s Sailors: A Review of the Economic Analysis of Wildlife Trade,” warns against the simplistic economic models used by wildlife trade proponents (countering, in fact, Assumption 4).

    As Hedges points out in another comment in this series (below), the fact that several African countries (including the two that contain most of the elephants) have declared ten-year ivory moratoria, and “thereafter until African elephant populations are no longer threatened” illustrates the recognition by African nations that a legal trade is not possible in the current dire situation for African elephants.

    Fiona Maisels
    Conservation Scientist, WCS

  11. Simon Hedges
    Asia/Kenya/UK
    September 24, 2014, 5:05 pm

    Given that the 1989 ban on international trade in ivory was prompted by the elephant poaching crisis of the 1980s when there was a legal trade in ivory, under a system of quotas, I cannot see why Dan Stiles thinks a limited legal trade (i.e. a trade with quotas) is the obvious answer to the current poaching crisis and he does not address that natural objection well in his article.

    Demand reduction is clearly an essential component of combatting the threat posed to elephants by the illegal ivory trade and we should not forget that demand for high value wildlife products have been successful in the past. Demand for rhino horn, for example, in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Yemen, once major consumers, has been significantly reduced through a combination of demand reduction campaigns, import bans, moratoria on domestic sales, and threats – and in the case of Taiwan – subsequent imposition of sanctions by the United States under the Pelly Amendment. However, I am unconvinced that demand reduction campaigns, which Stiles calls for, are natural bedfellows with his proposal for a legal international trade because the one can all too easily undermine the other.

    I am also puzzled by Stiles’ apparent belief that under a limited legal international trade scenario corruption would not continue to facilitate laundering, a frequently-raised objection to pro-trade proposals that I thought he dismissed too lightly. Moreover, poor governance and the demonstrable lack of enforcement of domestic and international laws in many countries of origin, transit, and consumption for ivory and many other wildlife products, combined with the large and increasing role now played by organized crime syndicates in the illegal wildlife trade, clearly undermine the possibilities for sustainable trade in high-value wildlife products. The fact that legal sustainable trade in crocodile leathers or timber can proceed, in well managed and enforced situations, in countries with a strong rule of law and good governance, does not make a prima facie case for a similar trade in ivory (and indeed significant problems continue to affect both the crocodile leather industry and the timber trades, which are furthermore very different to the ivory industry). In addition, there is a lack of human and financial resources commensurate with the scale of the poaching, trafficking, and demand problems in many, probably most, origin, transit, and consumption countries.

    For these and other reasons, there is growing recognition of the weakness of the economic arguments that are often used to justify a legal trade in high-value wildlife products. This realization, coupled with ever-increasing awareness of the severity of the threats that an international ivory trade poses to elephants resulted in even pro-ivory-trade countries such as Tanzania and Botswana declaring, at the launch of the Elephant Protection Initiative in London in February 2014, a moratorium on any international trade for a minimum of 10 years and thereafter until African elephant populations are no longer threatened. When even the two largest elephant range States are calling for such a moratorium it does rather suggest that this is not the time for proposing a resumption of the legal international trade in ivory.

    Simon Hedges
    Ivory Trade Policy Analyst, Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS)

  12. Donald Nigro
    Hilo, HI
    September 19, 2014, 7:07 am

    Mr. Stiles,
    Just became aware of your impressive writing today. Well done! It’s a major contribution to the discussion of ivory. Thank you for your efforts and research.
    I’m a small time, self-employed antique and coin dealer. Small business is so under attack by excessive and unnecessary government oversight, that I’ve chosen to scale back and not deal in scrap gold jewelry, foreign bullion coins, and all gold and silver ingots or rounds. I’m forced to either make less money or do extensive reporting to the government. Now I can’t even enjoy dealing in vintage or antique ivory (it’s a pathetic joke for anyone to demand 100 year-old plus ivory still have accompanying documentation.)
    I’ve developed a very simple credo:
    “Animal Rights need not
    trample Human Rights.”
    In a way, we are on the same page; seeking appropriate compromise and factoring in humans into any equation about ivory bans. Anything less is doomed for failure.

  13. Kirsten Conrad
    Singapore
    September 19, 2014, 6:11 am

    It’s very helpful to look at the ivory trade from a long perspective, and high time that we used facts to develop policy moving forward. Hopefully Dan’s piece can elevate the discussion and move it off the current stalemate.

    A few comments. First, to those who think that ivory should not be traded at all. I’ve been in Asia for over 20 years and have come to understand that conservation policy that is not grounded in local beliefs will fail. Morals can be dictated in the short term, at least on paper, but the persistence with which ivory (among other wildlife products) are consumed should be viewed as a positive force for conservation, not something to be eradicated. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder–in this case, the pocket book holder. Trading ivory from natural mortality and problem animal control will give consumers what they want and throw off significant resources for countries, and conservation programs, that desperately need the revenue.

    Second, on education, this is an area we identified for improvement on one of our research expeditions in China. Chinese consumers know the difference between legal and legal ivory, but, in my view, a stronger link between the conservation benefits from purchasing legal ivory, and the poaching effects from illegal ivory, is needed.

    Third, its important to keep in mind that poaching, and stockpiling behavior, is driven more by an anticipation of scarcity than a response to “demand”. That’s why extension of the moratorium has resulted in increased poaching. This is one tragic effect of the policy stalemate.

    Fourth, for some of the comments on demand, it might be helpful to consider whether it’s consumer demand? Or is it building inventory by carvers? Or perhaps investors? Or demand by criminals on the supply side, to cash in before anyone else does. There are a lot of dimensions about demand” that we have yet to understand.

  14. Zach Moore
    Ohio
    September 17, 2014, 6:17 pm

    I find it a little naive to think that when popular opinion _and_ an international ban on ivory doesn’t send a message that buying ivory is reprehensible, that popular opinion against legally purchased ivory will somehow do more to drive down consumer demand. This article does a fantastic job for laying out the practical impact of the ban, but I feel it misses something. Laws have a practical value, yes, but they are also a reflection of our societal/ethical values. By sanctioning the sale of ivory, doesn’t that send the wrong message about our stance on this issue? Here people are supporting the dissolution of the law, not necessarily because they endorse the sale of ivory but because it _may_ be a more pragmatic approach. Because companies that can legally profit from the sale of ivory will protect the elephant out of self-interest. I’m not sure I’m ready to accept this cynical solution.

  15. DFK
    right here
    September 17, 2014, 2:12 pm

    A well laid out part 1…timeline, issues evolution and argument clarity…indeed this is a possible path away from any significant poaching, but with humans involved, corruption will probably continue to exist..there are additional costs to this, to be effective, perhaps…

    I see even more additional law enforcement on all govt’s and multi nationals and even more “business” for NGO’s to create and get funded etc., to make the above plan a success..why?

    why would a “legal” factory not accept and purchase poached ivory on the backside? why would others not go under ground totally?…some are that way now, aren’t they? ok it will be expensive, and perhaps only a contributor to the poaching supply chain perpertrators’ income?

    maybe it needs to be addressed across ALL Animals, as there may well be fallout from locking down one animal in the exotic animal

    Are there significant efforts for things like dna sampling of populations, and “found” tusks, AND as they fall poached elephant remains? is there a confidence that we currently find “enough” of the poached animal carcasses to be statistically clear, DNA speaking? Do we have enough information to make real inroads into where the ivory derived from, and then maybe to whom?

    Cultural “Entitlement” seems to be a real challenge now in 2014

    human population is SO HIGH compared to animal populations, from just only 100 or 300 years ago….

  16. wonder mike
    September 17, 2014, 11:32 am

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/08/140829-elephants-trophy-hunting-poaching-ivory-ban-cities/

    I believe the national geographic article from just a few weeks ago shows rather well that elephants cant survive a legal ivory trade. Are you suffering from amnesia or do you just never read your fellow writers articles?

  17. Larry Williams
    Ohio
    September 17, 2014, 9:25 am

    Posted to Knife Talk Forums, September 17, 2014:

    http://www.knifetalkforums.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=121202#Post121202

    The illogic of the NY and NJ bans signifies how gut-driven and ideological the anti-ivory thing is at heart.

    They also demonstrate how politicians can put through anything they like into law–nonsensical as it might be.

    Most of the animal rights and environmental groups are membership-wide devoted to a total ban on any ownership and sale of ivory–period.

    These groups and their political associates form a closed-loop thinking circle where what someone asserts becomes the mantra that all of them adhere to, irrespective of logic or contradictory facts, information, or arguments. The classic definition of a closed mind.

    And the politicians who initiate such ideas (no need to name them again here) seem to be able to galvanize these groups in support of causes like the ban, and can count on that devotion carrying through at the polls.

    So–while we get a lot of solicitations for donations to “save” some species, we now screen them and do not donate to any that support the ban.

    The last I heard, The Nature Conservancy did not support the ban, and the National Geographic Society might not (at least it is willing to publish alternative points of view, which the ideologues will not do).

    So we donate to the Conservancy. And when it comes to the Humane Society of the US–we only donate to local shelters.

    Here are a couple of links for readers here to explore:

    http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/…#comment-398956

    http://elephantprotection.org/

    Larry

  18. Rob Mitchell
    USA
    September 17, 2014, 8:53 am

    Mr Hack – Direct action against corruption through law enforcement and international treaties will always need to be a part of the system. The issue this article raises is that providing legal alternatives for ivory can reduce the profit margin for the illicit trade. I also agree that stepped up law enforcement can increase the risk and expense associated with the illicit trade and should be pursued. I am not aware of any system that will eliminate corruption – realistically the goal is to minimize it. The ivory ban approach does very little to address corruption as a root problem, while it deprives African nations of a valuable tool – revenue from legal ivory – that could be effectively used both for conservation and offsetting costs of elephant populations to local communities (two sides of the same coin).

  19. Peter Hack
    United Kingdom
    September 17, 2014, 5:00 am

    Preventing Leakage and Laundering

    Legal ivory stockpile quantities would be reported annually to CITES, as currently required. A country not reporting would not be eligible to sell its ivory. Every eligible country would be subject to periodic independent monitoring of its stockpile in a manner to be determined by CITES.

    “CITES would supervise sales annually or semiannually following procedures established for the one-off sales. The significant difference being that now buyers would be confident that they’d know when, where, and how much ivory will be available in future. Uncertainty and speculation will be eliminated”. This is the utter and massive flaw in his argument; the illegal trade would continue via systemic corruption and the huge Chinese market as its fashion status continued.

  20. Peter Hack
    United Kingdom
    September 17, 2014, 4:20 am

    There seems to be massive assumptions here that I am not at all sure hold; the problem is the scale of the market in China that can not support any illegal trade and therefore the key is to outlaw ivory’s as a fashion item. how an earth will a legal trade prevent an illegal one when as the author so clearly states so much of Africa is beyond the rule of law and ivory retains its status as high value item? Serious and unsustainable leakages here in my view….and a deeply flawed argument.

    Preventing Leakage and Laundering

    “Legal ivory stockpile quantities would be reported annually to CITES, as currently required. A country not reporting would not be eligible to sell its ivory. Every eligible country would be subject to periodic independent monitoring of its stockpile in a manner to be determined by CITES.

    CITES would supervise sales annually or semiannually following procedures established for the one-off sales. The significant difference being that now buyers would be confident that they’d know when, where, and how much ivory will be available in future. Uncertainty and speculation will be eliminated.

    The ivory will be shipped in sealed containers directly from African government storerooms to Asian government receiving points in the purchasing countries for storage and distribution. This will cut out all of the points subject to corruption and laundering mentioned in the Bennett essay.

    If this type of system can be established, I foresee that many African countries that currently export their ivory illegally, often with government involvement, will see the advantages of cleaning up their act so that they can qualify to enter the legal trade regime. Why take the risk of smuggling illegal ivory that is subject to confiscation when it can be sold legally, risk-free? The advantages will become increasingly apparent as poached ivory prices plummet with legal trade”.

  21. Radhakrishnan
    Australia
    September 16, 2014, 10:52 pm

    I did comment sometime ago on the destruction of confiscated ivory by the authorities with huge fan fare for political gain. It is totally ineffective and can only create more demand and higher price for ivory, which in turn will make poaching a lucrative business and the extinction of elephants. Those recovered ivory should be auctioned by the Government to the highest bidder, legally sold to the ivory factory to keep the business and their profit alive. When the ivory is legally available the traffickers will stay away as there is no incentive for the high risk they take. The quantity of ivory so far destroyed was huge to create a vacuum in the market which can lead to scarcity and ‘black market’. The money the authorities collect from the auctions should be used to create public awareness, forest rangers/patrol/protection for wild animals, conservation and a part to the animal welfare organisations those who do a stupendous job of saving the animals. Just my opinion.

  22. Cindy O'Connor
    NYC
    September 16, 2014, 9:53 pm

    There doesn’t seem to be any reference to the degree that illegal Ivory is fueling multiple terrorist organizations, like Boko Haram, Al Shaabab, and others. This is what the black market has become…

  23. maria manuela fernandes
    Lisbon
    September 16, 2014, 4:35 pm

    Luto pela morte destas magnificas criaturas, e pela destruição do Contninete Africano, o berço da Humanidade.

  24. Sarel van der Merwe
    South Africa
    September 16, 2014, 2:38 pm

    It is dangerous to calculate what a lifting of the ban in ivory trade will have as result, using figures from the 80’s and 90’s. The current situation with poaching of several species is out of control and I do not foresee that it is going to be stopped easily.
    To my mind flooding the market is not going to be easy, since the demand is high. Further, as the human population growth spirals out of control, there will be many, many more “dealers” in the market, and poached ivory is much, much cheaper that those bought on the open market.

    In the mean time, overpopulated areas where elephants are now in abundance, such as in Botswana, suffer severe hammering of the natural habitat, as can be seen on the banks of the Chobe River. The Yellow Milkwoods, Gardenias, some Acacias (Sengalensis), have disappeared and in its place grows thick stand of the poisonous Croton.

    Edible food in the dry winter months is many miles away from the water, and young calves suffer tremendously to keep up with the murderous pace of the adults.

    I can only hope that this matter will receive very, very careful thought, whichever way it is decided to go. My best wishes to you all.

  25. Daniel Stiles
    Kenya
    September 16, 2014, 11:34 am

    I should point out that my views do not represent those of the IUCN AfESG.

  26. Diane Halvorsen
    September 16, 2014, 11:30 am

    Complicated issue for sure. I don’t even pretend to understand all the economics, but one thing that stands out is the author’s assumption; it is a given that the processing of elephant ivory into consumables of one sort or another must and will continue. Is it a case of “too big to fail”? I don’t know how there can ever be a geopolitical/economic solution so long as ivory is accepted as a marketable product, albeit a controlled substance.

  27. Godfrey Harris
    Los Angeles, California, USA
    September 16, 2014, 10:59 am

    The Ivory Education Institute has decided to post Dan Stie’s thoughtful article in its entirety on its website to broaden understanding of the ivory trade as it presently exists and expose the fallacies of a total ban on the trade and movement of ivory.

  28. Stania
    Singapore
    September 16, 2014, 10:32 am

    This is an interesting article and I do agree with Daniel that legal ivory of deceased elephants should be allowed as there will always be a demand. The only way how to reduce it (I don’t think it can ever be eliminated) is to push the prices of the products high enough to be out of reach of majority of the people. But most importantly is to educate people in the those countries were the demand is high. By enlighting people at what price they obtain their ivory knick-knacks, this might help them to decide they do not want to be part of such crimes committed on innocent animals. It can certainly be done. There are already places in Asia like in Singapore where the ivory sales are down and less and less shops are offering ivory as the interest is diminishing.

  29. John LaPolla
    USA
    September 16, 2014, 7:31 am

    Mr Stiles this article really shows it all. May be some of those pictures of these poor elephants and show how these poor things suffer with their faces half hacked away. Should be shown to those that crave it and make things out of it. Just may be their eyes for once will be opened. and Show some compassion. It is shame some thing like this has to happen in this century. Don’t these people think our elephants have suffer enlough

  30. Jane
    September 16, 2014, 5:04 am

    You know how I can tell when I’m being conned by someone in the animal exploitation game? They tell me that respectable people, who have nothing to gain by advocating for the end of unnecessary and brutal animal slaughter, are trying to fool me. Yes, Dame Daphne Sheldrick’s true mission is to keep the ban in place so she can get rich, mwahahaha! And here we thought she wanted what was best for the elephants to whom she’s devoted most of her life. A very crafty lady, indeed.

    “Most of the ivory trade opponents have experience studying elephants, or at least of being associated with elephants, over long periods of time. They see many as individuals with distinct personalities and accord them names. They follow and know the personal histories of each and in some
    sense elephants become part of the extended family. ”

    ^ So, basically, the people who know and love them for themselves and not how they can be used for money? Then those are the people I’ll listen to when it comes to saving them.

  31. Susi Bell
    Texas
    September 16, 2014, 1:52 am

    Good commentary on the problems and a logical solution

  32. John Frederick Walker
    USA
    September 15, 2014, 8:01 pm

    Daniel Stiles, who has spent years studying ivory trade issues, has laid out a clear case for how a highly-regulated trade in legal ivory could help reduce elephant poaching. Those who think that a permanent ban on ivory sales would help elephants should consider his analysis carefully. I look forward to reading part 2 of his report.

  33. Brendan Moyle
    New Zealand
    September 15, 2014, 6:55 pm

    An excellent piece Dan. I think that people have been so focused on the illegal market for carvings that they lose sight of the fact raw ivory is durable. It can, has been, and still is, being stockpiled by the bad guys. It is this stockpiling that needs to be understood. Seizures of worked ivory have not matched the dramatic increase in seizures of raw ivory.

    I fear the second mental roadblock is people thinking the 1990 CITES ban was going to be a long-term success. I agree with your reasoning that rather, it bought time for conservationists to finish the job- properly. We had a chance to implement a sustainable trade policy for elephants that would have shut the bad guys out of the trade for good.

  34. Jim Fray
    United States
    September 15, 2014, 2:24 pm

    Mr. Stiles Thank you so much for all of the effort that you have put into this article.It is about time that the well meaning but poorly informed supporters of the Ivory ban are made aware of the real reason for the slaughter of elephants by the poachers.I fully agree with your opinion that a a well controlled LEGAL Ivory is the only logical way to save the Elephant. That is the main concern that should be on the minds of all people that claim to hold this animal in high esteem.

  35. Sandra Brady
    Ohio
    September 15, 2014, 1:30 pm

    Very well stated. We need a plan that will protect the elephant and not add to or expand the black markets in ivory. To continue on the current path we will almost certainly insure the near extinction of the elephant, for to make something illegal raises its value and makes people want it all the more. I would also add the NGO’s should focus their efforts in China to reduce demand there rather than in the US where demand is already at an all time low, and the C.I.T.E.S 1989 ban has been effective.

  36. Rob Mitchell
    September 15, 2014, 12:26 pm

    Dan Stiles does a superb job in this article breaking down the illogical myths about one-off CITES sales that NGOs are using to push a global ivory ban. The route of the problem facing elephants is corruption in Africa, and passing more laws in a region that already shows contempt for the law is doomed to fail. Dan should be commended for providing a path away from corruption that will protect long-term interests of elephants without engaging in emotional hyperbole.